Kunstwollen: the Transfer and Precarious Survival of an Artistic-Theoretical Concept in Czech Art History of the 20Th Century1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kunstwollen: The Transfer and Precarious Survival of an Artistic-Theoretical Concept in Czech Art History of the 20th Century1 Tomáš Murár — Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Praha INTRODUCTION This article is an insight into theprecarious survival of a seminal as well as problematic th OPEN ACCESS concept of Kunstwollen in Czech art history of the 20 century. The concept of Kunst- wollen was created at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries in Austria, from where its influence in a modified form was brought into Czech lands. Here it rooted in 1920s and 1930s and then continued to the second half of the 20th century. This aspect of Czech art history, influenced by the concept of Kunstwollen, has been highly neglected by its historiography, which is rather aimed at art material expertise. Kunstwollen in Czech art history was also overshadowed by historical events following the year 1948, when this type of reasoning and thinking was unsuitable for a new Communist re- gime. This article tries to look into this omitted Kunstwollen problematic of the Czech art history and theory of the 20th century. Main character of this paper is Czech art historian Vojtěch Birnbaum (1877–1934). I assume that he was influenced by the Kunstwollen in his art historical and art theo- retical writings. His theories, although they are placed at solid places in Czech art history, have not been yet enough theoretically examined.2 His working with the Kunstwollen show important reading of an originally Austrian concept transferred in Czech art history. 1 This essay is published as part of the Charles University Research Development Pro- gramme No. 09: Literature and Arts in Intercultural Contexts. 2 Main Czech art historiography researches until today are two handbooks, one from 1986 Kapitoly z českého dějepisu umění I. Předchůdci a zakladatelé (Chapters from Czech Art His- toriography I. Predecessors and Founders) and the second from 1987 Kapitoly z českého dějepisu umění II. Dvacáté století (Chapters from Czech Art Historiography. The Twentieth Century). These are mainly focused on biographical and bibliographical details. Further texts are written, but those are fractional studies and do not attain the coherence of the 1980s handbooks. In those writings is Birnbaum’s work interpreted mainly as an art ma- terial expertise aimed at Middle Ages architecture. Birnbaum’s theories from 1920s and 1930s are interpreted as thought duplicates and mixtures of other theories, Austrian or German. I do not deny that Birnbaum worked with other theories, but I assume that he did not copy them, because I think he created his own proper theory, which continued the Austrian (and German) theoretical tradition. tomÁš murÁR 43 BAROQUE AS THE PURPOSE OF KUNSTWOLLEN The concept of Kunstwollen was created by Alois Riegl (1858–1905), one of the found- ers of so-called Vienna School of Art History,3 which after 1850s established the art his- tory discipline as an academic subject. Riegl used this concept in his three influential books: Stilfragen (1893), Spätrömische Kunstindustrie (1901) and Das holländische Grup- penportrait (1902). He used the Kunstwollen as an original methodological concept for a new academic subject and with it he tried to come up with a particular original ap- proach to the art history without any connections to other fields, mainly history and archeology.4 However, the problem of the Kunstwollen is that Riegl did not provide an exact explanation of what he meant by it. He used this concept with a confidence of an art theoretical concept, but in his books he used it every time quite differently. That provide a space for interpretations and there does exist a long lasting tradition of what the Kunstwollen could mean.5 This Kunstwollen can have a variety of English translations, for example, will to form (Worringer, 1953, p. 9), will of art (Binstock, 2004, p. 84), art drive (Sedlmayr, 2001, p. 11), artistic volition (Riegl, 1999, p. 63) and others. Unfortunately, I do not have a space (and it is not even the focus of this article) to analyze the whole problematic of Riegl’s Kunstwollen,6 but what I would like to do is to offer a short sketch of Riegl’s per- ception of the Kunstwollen, and that in order to the concept of history and temporality (Gubser 2005, 2006) and in order to how it is possible to comprehend it with help of another English translation. Last but not least, I would like to highlight the impor- tance of Kunstwollen in the theory of Czech art historian Vojtěch Birnbaum. On the base of Riegl’s writings (Riegl 1893, 1901, 1931), we can state two types of the Kunstwollen: historical Kunstwollen and temporal Kunstwollen. This twofold aim, evident during art historian’s work with an art object, notes even Michael Gubser: ‘The concept of Kunstwollen presumed a kind of evidence that took into account the subjective vision of the observer as well as the visual “data” of the observed object. It also offered an inherently temporal and historical account of cultural perception’ (Gubser 2006, p. 157). Historical Kunstwollen can be explained as these ‘visual data of the observed ob- ject’. It also can be interpreted as one of the most important notions of the Vienna 3 For further reading on Vienna School of Art History see, for example, book by Mathew Ram- pley (2013), Christopher S. Wood (2000), Edwin Lachnit (2005) or Leopold D. Ettlinger (1984). 4 This problem of assigning and borrowing of art history to and from other science fields is evident through the whole history of art history. Most recently art history approaches methods like, for example, literal theory, semiotics or neurosciences. For further reading see, for example, the anthology by Donald Preziosi (1998). 5 From those who tried to interpret Riegl’s Kunstwollen we can name for example Hans Sedl- mayr, Erwin Panofsky, Max Dvořák, Ernst Hans Gombrich, Wilhelm Worringer, Michael Podro, Margaret Olin, Margaret Iverson, Diana Reynolds, Christhopher S. Wood, Richard Woodfield, Michael Ann Holly, Alina Payne, Michael Gubser, Wolfgang Kemp, Benjamin Binstock, Lambert Wiesing, Henri Zerner and others. 6 For further reading on different interpretations of Riegl’s Kunstwollen and for so far the best elaborated reading of it, see, for example, a study by Michael Gubser (2006, pp. 153–163). 44 SLOVO A SMYSL 24 School of Art History claimed by its representatives: every art period has to be ex- amined as an immanent scientific subject and that has to be done on the base of the historical background of the time when the art object was created. That means the art historian examining the particular art object cannot consider the quality of the object based on his period aesthetic taste, but he has to examine it on the base of its meaning and importance for the time when the art object was created. Therefore, for example, the art historian of the 19th century should not consider the baroque architecture as perverse on the base of his neoclassicism art taste, but should look into the reasons why the baroque art claim art shapes and developments which it does.7 Art historian, how the Vienna School of Art History tried to show, should grasp the art object’s period as the base of the reason for creating a particular art. Thus the art historian should seek for this period reason of an art object, in other words, the art historian should understand the Kunstwollen of the period, when the examined art was created, therefore should understand the historical Kunstwollen. The other part of Riegl’s Kunstwollen is then temporal Kunstwollen. That is a sub- jective approach of the art historian, the time of art historian’s contact with the art object. This subjective pull towards the art object is necessary for the examination of the historical Kunstwollen, and one cannot be without the other. Through the temporal Kunstwollen the art historian is creating a bond with the art object and his own art drive is the reason why he is examining certain art object or period. So this temporal Kunstwollen is the art historian’s period reason why he is approaching the period reason of the specific art object, and histemporal Kunstwollen is determining the examination of the historical Kunstwollen. However, both of these aspects, historical and temporal, are still inferior to the Kunstwollen, itself. And this Kunstwollen with its aspects toward history as well as temporality is aimed primarily at the art object. Only the art object is able to connect these historical and temporal Kunstwollen(s) together. Only through the art object can art historian link up with the period of art object’s creation. That could mean that theKunstwollen itself is not in the historical period of the art object’s creation, nor in the time of art historian examination of the art object, but it is the core and substance of the art object. Alois Riegl’s Kunstwollen can be therefore interpreted as the nature of the art object beside its materiality, and in the same time only through its materiality. The Kunstwollen is why the art object was created and at the same time why it is examined. And it is not because of the external reasons of the art object, rather for the sake of the art object itself. This wanting of the art object to be created as well as to be approached (examined) is the Kunstwollen as the core of the art object, which shows the complexity of this Riegl’s art historical concept. This complexity and in the same time binary nature of the Kunstwollen can be also evident when we will try to translate it into English again.